User talk:Natuur12


Hi, would you please reconsider your list of example critical words created yesterday and quietly remove 'retard'? I have had the opportunity to think about being born with mental disability than most people do due to family circumstances, however I doubt that if this word were used as a form of negative criticism to label a Wikimedian on this project that it would pass unnoticed and not be questioned. I do not recall any past case of someone using it on the project as if it were descriptive of someone's foolish behaviour, so I doubt it is a project norm for this to be acceptable though many contributors might not be aware of how hurtful and loaded the word can be. Please see Retard (pejorative) and it might be helpful to search around about it, for example the post at is short and nicely put.

I don't want to start a debate about critical words on a noticeboard, I doubt it would be helpful or result in a policy change, but this does standout as being one that would be unwise for anyone to start using in practice. Thanks -- (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fae,
The only point I am making is that stating that someone is acting like a retard isn't a form of harassment. It is a harsh form of criticism and not the kind we should use often if you ask me but that was beside the point. (I can think of less formal and less public situations in which using a strong word can help someone snap out of it) I won’t withdraw what I stated, it is merely an example of a strong word used in a way that isn't harassment and we are not made of sugar. We both know that in popular culture the word is merely used as a synonym for stupid, idiot, loser etc. Perhaps it has something to do with me being Dutch but I am not in the business of censoring commonly used words because somewhere, some people might feel offended since that would be a slippery slope. Natuur12 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll note that we do not aim to censor Commons content, but civility in talk spaces is a requirement (both through the WMF terms of use and our policies with regard to maintaining a non-hostile environment for contributors). If this ever becomes a case, it will come down to whether the intent of the person using this word, or words like it, is to cause offence by labelling a contributor as mentally disabled. The word 'retard' is used with meanings similar to "you're a fool" but usage by responsible adults in almost any context in the modern world is hostile for the mentally disabled. On Commons our norm is to avoid being over literal with words as we have a multi-lingual volunteer base, however if a contributor is repeatedly using words like this that do cause offence to recognized minority groups, especially after it has been pointed out by others, then I would expect administrator action to be requested if the behaviour does not change. Reflecting over changes in language in the last two decades, mild phrases like "you stupid cow" used to be in common use, quite like "don't be a jerk", but now are considered deliberately offensive to all women and are not used in practice, though the identical "slippery slope" arguments were used to defend this type of language; the word "retard" is loaded in a similar way.
It's just not a good example of a word that can be used in criticism, but if you believe that a right to free speech means you would support it being used and don't believe that it creates a hostile environment or is likely to inflame discussion, then this would have to come down to a community choice of how we should best recognize or chose to respect the concerns of minority groups. I'll park this, as I don't want to go into hypothetical debate, if this ever becomes a real case, it may become a useful wider discussion about how "non-hostile environment" is best interpreted and enforced. -- (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't twist my words and put words in my mouth. There is also no need to tell me about Commons policy and norms since you know well enough that I am aware of them and our aim to remain mellow.
There is a difference between using a word when you are trying to explain something and when you use it to describes someone's behaviour. I never stated that I would support the use of words like retard in public other than for educational purposes though I would not censor or revdel the comments containing such words unless the person being addressed really wants me to do so. Strong words can be used by friends if someone is angry/sad/emotional and is irrational in a private setting to deliver the message so this person can grab him/self together.
I short, we should not start criticise people addressing them as behaving like a retard but it isn’t harassment. It is merely an ineffective way to give harsh criticism in a formal situation. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Questionable imagesEdit

All of the images by user Joaotv.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done they indeed seem to be grabbed from the web. Thanks for reporting. Natuur12 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain...Edit

...why the three images are nominated? Erichsens gård is a sign outside on the streets. ...why the image of IQ is derative work, as I took the all three images myself, and the concert ticket is from thefirm "Noorderlicht" which does not exist anymore? ...Why Kastellets images are DW? It is a collection of several publications, but the images are in the public domain.

Will you nominate more of my images? Then please give a better explanation so that I can understand why they are DW. -Rodejong (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't promise I won't nominate more but commented in some of the DR's. Natuur12 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider...Edit

Greetings Natuur! Would you consider reverting your close on File:Marat Sade program.jpg, based on the user's talk page edit here: He's having trouble with the system, but AGF and there's a very clear statement ": a photo taken by me of my production of the play at the Virginia Museum Theater. I was the producer and director and photographer. It was later published, using my permission, in Robert Cohen's book on Acting. Not being a professional photographer, I did not require Robert to give me credit. KFFOWLER" Thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I found a link to an OTRS-ticket at his talk page confirming his indentity. Therefor I restored it. We really need better tracking of confirmed users. Natuur12 (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Gröninger OrgelEdit

Beste Natuur12, nog een vraag: is de mail van Jean-Charles Ablitzer voor File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (1).jpg t/m File:Halberstadt Martini Orgel (13).jpg al binnen? Vriendeljke groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Wikiwal,
Ik kan helaas geen bijbehorend ticket vinden.
Mvg. Natuur12 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank! Dat is vreemd. Ik zal de auteur vragen de mail nog eens op te sturen. Groet, --Wikiwal (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank voor je moeite! Ik ben blij dat het uiteindelijk wel gelukt is. Groet, --Wikiwal (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Graag gedaan! Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Museum of Veterinary AnatomyEdit

Hello, Natuur12!

I see that you made this change on that template. Don't you consider that enough for publishing files with that template? I have read the ticket and I couldn't find a flaw on that. If you still see something wrong, could you please, tell me what should be done?

Thank you very much!—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Teles,
I only undeleted the template after an undeletion request and added the recieved template to prevent a renomination. Though I am not keen of the statement myself since I believe a statement at the source website would be better plus the statement is a bit vauge. Normally I would't be splitting hairs like this but we are talking about a lot of files. But if you believe this statement is okay feel free to accept it. You are probably more familiar with Portugese contract law than I am. Natuur12 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not comfortable with approving the ticket for being part of the same user group involved with that and for not having a large experience with museums files. We had some files deleted and I just want to clarify the issues so we can finally solve it. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Teles: I also noted that the creator of the template is blocked. Perhaps someone involved with this project could ask for an unblock? I hope the block didn't damage the relationship between the University and Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a bit too much IMO...—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
He was renamed from MGromov to Horadrim. The first one was considered improper and blocked. As he was renamed, I have unblocked him.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Forza! en JordySchaapEdit

Hi Nature. (Ik ga verder in het Nederlands. De anderen mogen mijn verhaal door Google Translate halen.) Ik heb net Henk_Bres.jpg genomineerd, afkomstig van Forza! TV. Nu zie ik dat er eerder afbeeldingen van Forza! verwijderd zijn, die ook door deze gebruiker waren geüpload. Maar dat niet alleen, ook een verkiezingsposter van de LPF, enz. Bovendien heeft de gebruiker nu weer een hele rits bestanden geüpload. De uploader heeft ook nergens op nominaties gereageerd, behalve misschien hier anoniem een vaag zinnetje. Kan jij de uploads eens bekijken (want misschien moet álles verwijderd worden) en JordySchaap toespreken of waarschuwen? Heel hartelijk dank als je dat wilt doen. Hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ik vermoed dat de afbeeldingen deels van Facebook zijn geplukt gezien de misvormde EXIF en de erg diverse resoluties. Sommige lijken me van andere websites gejat. Zal er morgen even goed naar kijken. Natuur12 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Bedankt. Ik heb er alvast nog eentje genomineerd net. Betrof een screenshot van YouTube. Succes morgen. ErikvanB (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Kijk nou eens wat ik net kreeg voor een bericht. Dat is ook toevallig. Ik had namelijk net de foto uit het artikel verwijderd. Maar die claim moet wel eerst aannemelijk gemaakt worden per email, denk ik. En de cameraman van de video, gaat die ook akkoord? De uploader was in elk geval niet de auteursrechthouder van de LPF-poster en het HAP-verkiezingsbord, denk ik zo. ErikvanB (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Het zou kunnen dat hij betrokken is geweest bij de totstandkoming van de video maar we hebben imho toestemming nodig via OTRS voor alle foto's en dan het liefst van iemand die wat hoger in de pikorde staat en wat meer ervaring heeft met auteursrecht. Bij kleine partijen kan het een behoorlijke lastig zijn om erachter te komen hoe alles nu precies zit omdat een hoop niet goed geregeld is, ze hebben alleen een gebruikslicentie, het auteursrecht ligt nog bij een vrijwilliger of de moeder/vader/zwager etc van een van de betrokkenen heeft eens een keertje een foto gemaakt en alleen gezegd je mag het gebruiken etc etc.
Ik heb overal maar no permission op geknald. Dan krijgt hij automatisch uitleg over OTRS maar normaal verwijder is dit soort series bestanden direct. De kans dat het goedkomt is erg klein. Zeker wanneer de persoon om wie het gaat erg eigenwijs is. File:Bestuur Forza!.jpg is trouwens een goed voorbeeld van een bestand dat vermoedelijk van Facebook afkomstig is gezien de EXIF. Natuur12 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Veel dank. Je hebt gelijk. ErikvanB (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fijn om een topic over mij te openen zonder mij erbij te betrekken, over iemand een mes in de rug steken gesproken. Ik snap niet wat er niet duidelijk is aan eigen werk! Ik uplaod niets wat niet van mij is. Goed, heel in het begin heb ik inderdaad de fout gemaakt als nieuwe beginner met de HAP en de LPF poster, de rest is echter mijn eigen werk. Uit mijn eigen materiaal, gefilmd en gefotografeerd. Ja soms komt het van Facebook, maar dat is omdat ik het op mijn EIGEN facebook pagina en prive profiel heb geulpad en er nu weer van af haal. Ik en andere vrijwilligers werken ons de kolere om er iets moois van te maken en jullie moderators kijken er niet eens naar en verwijderen alles direct. Grof, heel grof en heel pijnlijk. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste JordySchaap,
Kalmeert u alstublieft. De manier waarop u uzelf uitdrukt wordt niet getolereerd op Wikimedia Commons. Uw houding tot dusver is ook de reden waarom ik ervoor gekozen heb de bestanden simpelweg te taggen in plaats van met een stappenplan te komen. Ik ben bereid u te helpen maar dan zult u wel mee moeten werken. De richtlijnen op Wikimedia Commons eisen dat de toestemming voor het gebruik van een werk vastgelegd wordt via ons mailsysteem wanneer dit elders gepubliceerd/openbaar gemaakt is voordat het werk geupload is op Wikimedia Commons. Het maakt niet uit uw u de rechthebbende bent of niet. Deze procedure zal doorlopen moeten worden. Er zullen dan waarschijnlijk wat vragen gesteld worden over onder welke omstandigheden de afbeeldingen en het videomateriaal gemaakt zijn en welke afspraken er gemaakt zijn met het partijbestuur. Realiseert u zich alstublieft dat alle moderatoren hier ook vrijwilligers zijn. Per dag verwijderen we minstens tussen de 1500-2000 afbeeldingen omdat deze niet aan het toelatingsbeleid voldoen en dat gebeurt voornamelijk door een groep van 10-15 vrijwilligers. De middelen zijn beperkt en als iemand tekeer gaat en de procedures niet wilt doorlopen is het in veel veel gevallen vrij simpel. Dan is het gelijk klaar en gaan we door naar iemand die wel mee wilt werken. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ik ben kalm, maar wel zeer gekwetst. Makkelijk gezegd. Ik roep steeds om hulp aan verschillende moderators om dingen te verbeteren of te verduidelijken of hoe wat te doen. 8 van de 10 keer krijg ik geeneens antwoord! En de andere keren is het "zoek het zelf uit" of een linkje naar een pagina van +1000 woorden in he Engels waar ik geen tijd en zin in heb om die door te nemen. En als ik in een discussie wat wil verduidelijken wordt er of niet naar gekeken of simpelweg genegeerd en gaan de moderators alleen met elkaar in debat. Ik wil alle procedures met liefde doorlopen, maar dat dit nooit eerder is vermeld stuit mij tegen de borst, dat het nu allemaal opeens is. Maar i.p.v. te discusiieren zou ik dan via de mail of ergens anders een link mogen verkrijgen hoe ik dat kan doen, want dat krijg ik niet. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

De procedure die u dient te doorlopen is u uitgelegd. In plaats van de handleiding door te lezen begon u te schelden. Het is volkomen normaal om eerst de regels door te lezen voordat u ergens aan wilt deelnemen. In dit geval het project Wikimedia Commons. Het doorlezen van die handleiding is uw verantwoordelijkheid en die van u alleen. Als u daarna nog vragen heeft zijn er zat mensen die u willen helpen. Mocht u onvoldoende kennis van de Engelse taal hebben zijn er ook zat mensen die u willen helpen maar mensen gaan inderdaad niet herhalen wat lang en breed uitgelegd wordt in de handleiding. Als u de handleiding niet door wilt nemen is er weinig wat ik voor u kan doen. Er staan momenteel 800+ mensen in de wacht die de handleiding wel doorgelezen hebben en wel een mailtje gestuurd hebben. Vindt u het dan zelf eerlijk tegenover die mensen om hun wachttijd te verlengen omdat ik met u bezig ben simpelweg omdat u geen tijd en zin heeft om de handleiding even door te nemen? Op Commons:OTRS wordt de hele procedure uitgelegd. Op die pagina staat ook een link naar deze tool die u heel makkelijk kunt gebruiken om een email te sturen waarbij alle details correct ingevuld zijn. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-licenseEdit

Hi Natuur12, thank you for taking care of the situation of Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license. According to your suggestion, we have asked the museum communication to add a note on their website about the GLAM project we are working on. You can read it at: (section News). Is this enough to solve this issue definitely? If so, could you please erase the reference to problems with licensing on the template, please? Thank you! Joalpe (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joalpe,
Which account will be used for upload the photographs? If I know which account will be used I can leave a note at the accounts user page and everything would be fine. The template could use some rewording though. It isn't unthinkable that people believe that all the files of the museum are released under a free license if they haven't read the statement at the website. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Natuur12. Thanks for the advice about the template. The idea is that the template will be linked to each individual work we upload --this is the reason we have used the expression "This media was produced...". Perhaps, we can make a link to the museum statement, which will clarify potential doubts.
  1. User accounts that will be used to upload the photographs are: Horadrim, Sturm and Joalpe.
  2. Could you please delete the note on the template about insufficient information?
Thanks for your help! Joalpe (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I will take a look later today when I am in a more private setting. I need to prepare some documentation regarding the OTRS-ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Joalpe,
I asked them to confirm if the accounts are indeed authorised. (Just a matter of formality) But you can start uploading. If a community member complains, just blame me ;). I told them that we might contact them again after everything is uploaded for one final confirmation. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for taking care of this. Who is "them", the Museum? We have uploaded some images; thanks again! Joalpe (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Them is indeed the museum. Natuur12 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you look into thisEdit and this The editor above you blocked before has reverted 3 times in 1.5 hours my improved description of the photo with no improvement of their own. It seems like they are doing it for amusement. Thanks 06:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I rather remain uninvolved regarding this debate though I have to say that I am sorry to see that you got blocked at en-wiki. Regarding original research. This is a Wikipedia rule and it doesn't apply at Wikimedia Commons. We have plenty original research and we need it since we wouldn't have so many high quelity files as maps, COA's, flags, species etc if we would have a rule against it. SchroCat however has the right to blank his own talk page.
Regarding this edit summary. He was never banned but blocked. For a non wikiholic the difference is probably merely artificial but a ban is more severe and often requires community consensus while a block is most of the time imposed by a single admin. But it is best not to confuse blocks and bans at en-wiki.
I hope this helps you out but there is not much more that I can do besides giving you the advice to stay mellow and try to smooth things over after your block expires. Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opmerking over verwijdering van AholdDelhaize en AholdDelhaize_merken.jpgEdit

Beste Natuur12,

beide afbeelding zijn vrij te downloaden op de website van AholdDelhaize(.com) waardoor ik geen probleem zie met het gebruik op wikipedia. Misschien kunnen we aan hen de vraag stellen?

Alvast bedankt! Maarten De Moor (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Maarten De Moor,
Dat een afbeelding vrij te downloaden is betekent niet dat deze afbeelding voldoet aan ons licentiebeleid. We hebben dus toestemming nodig van de rechthebbende van al die logo's. En die toestemming zal vastgelegd moeten worden via ons mailsysteem. Als je akkoord gaan met de vrijgave van hun logo's onder een vrije licentie kunnen ze blijven, gaan ze niet akkoord moeten ze weg. Bedenk wel dat toestemming voor gebruik op Wikipedia alleen onvoldoende is. Natuur12 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate imagesEdit

I uploaded this image only to find the same one. But the file sizes are somehow different.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why the file sizes differ but I tagged it with {{duplicate}}. This way it should be resolved. Natuur12 (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Natuur12".